Don’t put one man’s profit motives ahead of overall public interest

-A A +A

To the editor:
I read with great interest the article titled “Upset residents lobby for, get public hearing,” [in last week’s newspaper].
I attended and participated in all planning and zoning meetings regarding Mr. Larry Cann’s zoning change request within the vicinity of Harry Wise Road, including the fiscal court meeting which this article featured.
After the meeting I was still trying to comprehend, because it wasn’t clear during the meeting on what information did the fiscal court base its reversal of the planning and zoning recommendation? That change allows Mr. Cann to proceed with the proposed subdivision.
County Attorney Bobbi Jo Lewis framed the discussion as “new facts to be considered” from information Mr. Cann and his attorney presented during a Sept. 6 meeting of the fiscal court. Ben Carlson’s article makes it very clear that the “new finding of facts” is “the magistrates’ main contention is that planning and zoning made its decision based on an outdated comprehensive plan that does not take into account that public water and sewer service is available along Harrodsburg Road.”
So this is the new finding of facts? No wonder it was an elusive point during the meeting; it was really no new information at all. Planning and zoning unbiasedly vetted the same matter at two previous public hearing.
After much discussion and the county attorney not allowing our concerned citizens of the Harry Wise Road area presentation to be given, the fiscal court decided upon conducting a future public hearing. I was among only a few allowed to speak during the meeting since the county attorney would not allow it due to the law.
Judge-Executive John Wayne Conway graciously allowed me to speak my mind about my frustrations of finding out about the proposed access road to the subdivision — which, by the way, is located along my property line — only at the initial planning and zoning hearing. I spoke of concerns in locating a main access for a development at the bottom of a blind hill on Harry Wise Road.
I pointed out that one of the main responsibilities of government is public safety, and that it appeared that the profit of one individual was being considered above it.
Mr. Carlson’s article also shedded more light on the situation when he wrote: “Cann has spent the past couple of years attempting to get the property rezoned, only to be denied twice by the planning and zoning commission.”
I would venture a guess that his history of effort probably involved lobbying some of the magistrates. Truly speculation on my part, but after all, his occupation and profession of design of sewage and water infrastructure within the community and county probably go a long way with local government officials, while ordinary concerned citizens struggle to be heard within due process of law.
If you are concerned about one individual leveraging his influence and profit motives upon fiscal court and the community, please attend the public hearing Oct. 6 at 7 p.m. at the Extension building, located in Anderson Community Park, so your voice can be heard.
Stewart West